John v. The Queen

John v. The Queen

Allowing the Crown to split its case by adducing reply evidence that introduced new issues and attacked the accused's credibility violated the accused's right to elect to testify with full knowledge of the Crown's case and occasioned a miscarriage of justice; the proviso in s.613(1)(b)(iii) could not be invoked...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1985] 2 SCR 476
Parties
Appellant; Respondent: Tracy Evans John; Respondent; Appellant: Her Majesty The Queen
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 December 1985
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Ontario Court of Appeal; Judgment on December 10, 1985
Outcome
Appeals allowed; conviction for rape quashed; new trial ordered on all five counts
Legal Topics
Splitting of Crown's Case, Evidence in Reply, Right to Elect to Testify, S.613(1)(b)(iii) Proviso, Kienapple Principle, Multiple Convictions
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Evidence Procedure Appeal Splitting of Crown's Case Evidence in Reply Right to Elect to Testify S.613(1)(b)(iii) Proviso +2 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tracy Evans John

Appellant; Respondent

Her Majesty The Queen

Respondent; Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Ontario Court of Appeal; Judgment on December 10, 1985

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Crown improperly split its case by adducing reply evidence that introduced new issues and attacked the accused's credibility
  2. 2 Whether the proviso in s.613(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code could cure the trial error and uphold the conviction
  3. 3 Whether the Kienapple principle was properly applied to quash convictions on other counts

Ratio Decidendi

Allowing the Crown to split its case by adducing reply evidence that introduced new issues and attacked the accused's credibility violated the accused's right to elect to testify with full knowledge of the Crown's case and occasioned a miscarriage of justice; the proviso in s.613(1)(b)(iii) could not be invoked because the appellate court could not realistically assess the case absent the improperly adduced evidence, therefore the rape conviction had to be quashed and a new trial ordered.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed; conviction for rape quashed; new trial ordered on all five counts

Orders

  • Conviction for rape quashed
  • New trial ordered on all five counts